LMC Topics: (Caveat: Update based on topics given)

LOCAL INITIATIVE & REFERENDUM

Local initiative. DEFINED
o Legal process whereby the registered voters [RVs] of a LGU may directly
PROPOSE, ENACT, AMEND [PEA] any ordinance. It may be exercised
by ALL RVs of the province, citiesm municipalities, barangays.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INITIATIVE & LOCAL INITIATIVE vs REFERENDUM
- INITIATIVE is the power of the RVs to propose amendments to the
Constitution/propose and enact legislations through an election called for the
purpose. LOCAL INITIATIVE is the legal process whereby RVs of LGU may
directly PEA any ordinance. Initiative is a process of law-making by the people
themselves without the participation of their elected representatives, WHILE
REFERENDUM consists of the electorate approving or rejecting what has
been enacted by a legislative body. [Case: Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs
COMELEC, 262 SCRA 492]
INITIATIVE: PROCEDURE
A. Number of signatures of votes
a. At least 1,000 in provinces and cities
b. AL 100 in municipalities
c. AL 50 in barangays
B. If NO FAVORABLE ACTION taken by SANG concerned within 30 days from
presentation, the proponent through their duly authorized and registered
representatives, may invoke their power of initiative, giving NOTICE thereto to
the SANG concerned.
C. Propositions shall be numbered serially e.g. Roman Numeral I + COMELEC to
assist in formation
D. Proponents shall have the ff. days from notice above-mentioned to collect
signatures:
Period to collect signatures
a. 90 days in Provinces and cities
b. 60 days in municipalities
c. 30 days in barangays
 E. Petition shall be signed before the election registrar/designated rep AND in the
presence of a representative of the proponent and rep of the SANG concerned
in a public place in the LGU.
F. Upon lapse of the period, COMELEC shall certify W/N the required number
of signatures has been obtained. Failure to obtain the required number of
signatures defeat the proposition.
G. If required number is obtained, COMELEC shall set a date for the initiative
during which the proposition is submitted to the registered voters in the LGU
for the approval:
a. Within 60 days from date of certification by the COMELEC– P
b. 45 days; same – M
c. 30 days; same – B
The initiative shall be held on the date set, after which the results thereof
be certified and proclaimed by the COMELEC.
H. If proposition is approved by a majority of votes cast, it shall take effect 15 days
after certification by the COMELEC as if affirmative action had been taken
thereon by the SANG and Local Chief Executive concerned.
LIMITATIONS
A. ON local initiative
a. Power of initiative shall NOT be exercised more than once a year.
b. It shall extend ONLY to matters within the power of the SANG to enact
i. In delineating the scope of initiative or referendum, Section 32,
Article VI of the Constitution includes any act of a local legislative
body. The Constitution includes ordinances and resolutions as
appropriate subjects of a local initiative.
ii. Section 3 (6) RA 6735 expressly includes not only ordinances but
resolutions as appropriate subjects of a local initiative on local
legislations. Section 124 of the LGC includes all matters within the
legal powers of the SANG to enact in the scope of initiative, which
includes resolutions [Garcia vs COMELEC, 237 SCRA 279]
c. If at any time BEFORE the initiative is held, the SANG concerned adopts
in toto the proposition presented and the Local Chief Executive approves
the same, the initiative shall be cancelled. HOWEVER, those against such
action may, if they so desire, apply for initiative in the manner herein
provided.
B. ON the SANGGUNIAN
 a. Any proposition or ordinance approved through initiative or referendum
shall NOT be repealed, modified or amended by SANG concerned within
6 months from date of approval thereof, and any be amended, modified,
or repealed by SANG within 3 years by three-fourths (¾) vote of all
members, provided that in case of Barangaym the period shall be 18
months after the approval thereof. (Sec. 125, LGC)
REFERENDUM
- The local referendum shall be held under the control and direction of the
COMELEC within 60 days in case of province and cities, 45 days in case of
municipalities, and 30 days in case ofbarangays.

SETTLEMENT OF BOUNDARY DISPUTE (Sec. 118, LGC)

- Boundary disputes between and among LGUs shall be, as much as possible, be
settled AMICABLY
Nature and Power
- Power of provincial board to settle boundary dispute is of administrative nature
– involving the adoption of means and ways to carry into effect the law creating
said municipalities. It is a power to fix a common boundary, in order to avoid or
settle conflicts of jurisdiction between adjoining municipalities.
- The agreement between the municipality of Jimenez and Sinacaban (embodied
in a resolution of a provincial board declaring certain barrios part of one or
another municipality) is INVALID as it would effectively amend EO 258
creating the municipality of Sinacaban. It is contrary to the technical description
of the territory of the municipality as per E0 258, and therefore NOT
BINDING. The power of the SANG. PANLALAWIGAN to settle boundary
dispute is limited to implementing the law creating the municipality and, any
ALTERATION of boundaries NOT in accordance with the law is NOT
implementation but AMENDMENT of the law, which would exceed their
authority. [Jimenez vs. Baz, 256 SCRA 182]
Jurisdiction
- The LGC confers jurisdiction in settling boundary disputes to the ff:
o SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD/SANG. BAYAN
 Involving two or more barangays in the SAME city or municipality;
o SANG. PANLALAWIGAN
 Two/more municipalities within SAME PROVINCE.
 o Joint SANGGUNIANS of provinces concerned
 Those involving municipalities of component cities of different
provinces; and
o Joint SANG. of the PARTIES
 Those involving a COMPONENT CITY/MUNICIPALITY on
one hand, and HIGHLY URBANIZED CITY on the other hand,
OR two or more HIGHLY URBANIZED CITIES; jointly
referred to the respective SANGs of the parties
- Boundary disputes involving municipalities or component cities of diff.
provinces shall be jointly referred to for settlement to the SANGGUNIANS of
provinces concerned. (Sec. 118, LGC)

- In the event SANGs fails to effect a settlement within 60 days from date the
dispute was referred to it, it shall issue a certification to this effect. The dispute
shall then be formally tried by the SANG. concerned which shall decide the issue
within 60 days from the date of certification.

- Within the time and manner prescribed by the Rules of Court, any party may
elevate the decision of the SANG. concerned to the proper RTC having
jurisdiction over the area in dispute which shall decide the appeal within 1 year
from the filing thereof.

- In Calanza vs. PICOP [GR 146622, April 24, 2009] case, SC said RTC
CANNOT exercise appellate jurisdiction over the case since there was NO
PETITION filed and decided by the SANG. PANLALAWIGANs of Davao
Oriental and Surigao del Sur. Neither can RTC assume original jurisdiction over
the boundary dispute since LGC allocates such power to the [Link] of
Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur.

- WHEN LGC IS SILENT ON JURISDICTION.

o Sec. 118 (d) of LGC applies to a situation in which a component city or

municipality seeks to settle a boundary dispute with a highly urbanized
city, NOT an independent component city. While Kanaga is a
municipality, Ormoc is an independent component city. Clearly then, the
procedure referred to in Section 118 (d) does NOT apply to them. Since
there is NO legal provision specifically governing jurisdiction over the
boundary disputes between a municipality and an independent
 component city of the same province, the general rule governing
jurisdiction should be used. The applicable provision is found in Section
19 (6) of BP 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended
by RA 7691, which provides the RTC shall exercise ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION in cases NOT within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or-quasi-judicial
functions. [Municipality of Kanaga vs. Madrona, 402 SCRA 330]
PROCEDURE
1. AMICABLE SETTLEMENT (reason is as stated earlier)
2. FORMAL HEARING – In the event SANG fails to effect an amicable
settlement within 60 days from date the dispute was referred to it, it shall issue a
certification to that effect. The dispute shall then be formally tried by the
Sanggunian concerned which shall decide the issue within 60 days from the date
of certification.

In case NO SETTLEMENT of BD between municipalities is made, the BD

should be elevated to the RTC of the PROVINCE.
FAILURE of COURT to decide within period prescribed by law does NOT
divest/deprive it of its jurisdiction to decide the case, BUT ONLY makes the
judge thereof liable for administrative sanction. In Jimenez vs. Baz (ibid), the SC
declared that the RTC was correct when it ordered a relocation survey to
determine to which municipality the barangays belonged.
3. APPEAL – within the time and manner prescribed by the Rules of Court, any
party may elevate the decision to the SANG. concerned to the proper RTC
having jurisdiction over the area in dispute which shall decide the appeal within
1 year from the filing thereof.

In Mun. of Sta. Fe vs. Mun. of Aritao [GR 140474, September 21, 2007], SC held
that it is only in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction can the proper RTC
decide the case, on appeal, should any party aggrieved by the decision of the
[Link] elevate the same.

Calanza vs PICOP case

- No boundary dispute in this case.
- FACTS: Calanza, et al are approved applicants of small-scale mining permits
for purpose of exacting gold with area of operation in Municipality of Boston,
 Davao Oriental. Gov. Lopez of Davao Oriental approved said application.
Since mining areas applied for by petitioners were within PICOP’s logging
concession area under TLA covering forest lands of Prov. Of Surigao del Sur,
Agusan del Sur, Davao Oriental and Davao del Norte, naki-negotiate si
petitioners for entry into mining site at Brgy. Catihan, Mun. of Boston, Davao
Or.
- BUT PICOP REFUSED ENTRY (Big Word).
o REASON:
 PICOP has exclusive right of occupation, possession and control
over the area being a logging concessionaire
 Mining permits were defective since the mining area is situated in
Surigao del Sur.
- Petitioner filed with RTC praying to enjoin PICOP from prohibiting them to
enter and operate in mining sites.
- PICOP countered: (1) RTC of Davao does not have jurisdiction over the
complaint since the disputed area is situated in the Province of Surigao del Sur;
and (2) that the petitioners permits are void since it violated sec. 5 of RA 7076,
which allegedly prohibits the issuance ofmining permits over areas covered by
forest rights such as TLAs or forest reservation unless their status iswithdrawn
by the competent authority.
- RTC ruled in favor of petitioners:
o Barangay Pagtilaan (as claimed by PICOP) or Catihan (as claimed by
petitioners) is within the territory of the Province of Davao Oriental.
o Section 465 (b) (3) of RA 7160 (LGC of 1991, states that the governor has
the power to issue licenses and permits. Hence, the RTC ruled that the
governor is vested with the power to issue the small-scale mining permits
to the petitioners.
- CA reversed:
o RTC erred in passing upon the issue of the boundary dispute between the
provinces of Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur since the resolution of
the boundary dispute primarily resides with the sangguniang
panlalawigans of the two provinces and the RTC has only appellate
jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to the Local Government Code of
1991.
o GOV has NO POWER to issue SSM permits since authority is vested
with Provincial Mining Regulatory Board.
- SC: Petition is NOT meritorious, and should be DENIED
 o There is boundary dispute when a portion or the whole of the territorial
area of a Local Government Unit (LGU) is claimed by two or more LGUs.
o This is NOT a case where the [Link] of Davao
Oriental and Surigao del Sur jointly rendered a decision resolving the
boundary dispute of the two provinces and the same decision was elevated
to the RTC. Clearly, the RTC CANNOT exercise appellate jurisdiction
over the case since there was NO petition that was filed and decided by
the SANGPANLAs of Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur. Neither can
the RTC assume original jurisdiction over the boundary dispute since the
Local Government Code allocates such power to the SANGPANLA of
Davao Oriental and Surigao del Sur. Since the RTC has NO original
jurisdiction on the boundary dispute between Davao Oriental and Surigao
del Sur, its decision is a TOTAL NULLITY. Hence, judgment rendered
by court without jurisdiction is NULL and VOID and may be attacked
anytime. It creates no right and produces no effect.

o Petitioners are bound by the procedures for application of permit from

PMRB as provided in RA 7076. Instead of processing and obtaining their
permits from the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board, petitioners were
able to get the same from the governor of Davao del Norte. Considering
that the governor is without legal authority to issue said mining permits,
the same permits are null and void.

PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE and MUN. of CALUYA vs. Hon. Calabocal, Roxas

Oriental Mindoro, Province of Oriental Mindoro and Mun. of Bulalacao
[GR 209146, June 8, 2016] ***fresh na fresh! Last year lang!
FACTS:
- Dispute is between the Province of Antique and the Province of Oriental
Mindoro for “territorial jurisdiction, dominion, control and administration” over
Liwagao Island (114 Ha white-sand fuckin’ beach island located between two
provinces).
- Around 1978 and 1979, MAYOR Dolores Bago (Mayor Bago), then Mayor of
Mun of Bulalacao, Or. Mindoro, agreed to LEND the administration of Liwagao
island to Oscar Lim (Mayor Lim of Mun. of Caluya, Antique). The agreement
was made ORALLY (lol) and WITHOUT executing any formal documents to
 this effect. The condition attached to the agreement was that the island would
be returned upon termination of either party”s terms in office.
- The terms of both mayors ended in 1987. Mayor Lim allegedly returned Liwagao
Island to the Municipality of Bulalacao. However, the Municipality of Caluya
continued to exercise administration over the island.
- 15 April 2002 – the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro passed a
resolution confirming its jurisdictional rights and dominion over Liwagao Island.
However, according to respondents, Municipality of Caluya and the Province of
Antique continued to claim and exercise authority over Liwagao Island.
o Respondent: Despite the fact that it is the Province of Oriental Mindoro
and the Municipality of Bulalacao that provide government services to the
island, petitioners “continued collecting real property taxes” from
Liwagao”s inhabitants.
- 20 February 2012 – the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro passed
Resolution calling for a joint session between SANG. PANLA of PROVINCE
of Oriental Mindoro and SANG. PANLA of PROVINCE of ANTIQUE for
the settlement of claim over the Island of Liwagao.
- Upon receipt, Vice Governor of Antique wrote the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Oriental Mindoro of her willingness to conduct a joint session to settle the
boundary dispute.
- 25 May 2012 – Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Antique issued Resolution
informing Oriental Mindoro that it was NOT amenable to any form of
settlement over the jurisdiction of Liwagao Island and asserted that the same
rightfully belongs to their province. (Suplada yung nagoral-ly lend! Bat nga
naman makikisettle yung nagpahiram). Thereafter, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Oriental Mindoro issued a resolution directing the Provincial Legal Office to
file the necessary legal action to claim Liwagao Island.
- 12 September 2012 – Respondent filed petition before RTC of Roxas, Or.
Mindoro.
- Petitioner answered:
o The maps of [NAMRIA] and DENR show Liwagao Island to be part of
Caluya, Antique.
o All national agencies of the government have always considered the island
to be part of Caluya.
o The people living there have always recognized Caluya’s jurisdiction over
the island, e.g. “registered their births, paid real property taxes and voted
in Caluya, Antique.”
 o RTC lacks jurisdiction since under Section 118, paragraph (c) of the Local
Government Code, jurisdiction over boundary disputes between
municipalities of different provinces is vested on the Sangguniang
Panlalawigans of the provinces involved.
- 23 April 2013 RTC RULING: (23 April 2013 Ruling): special and affirmative
defenses invoked by the Province of Antique and the Municipality of Caluya.
Specifically, petitioners argued that the case involved a boundary dispute that
should have first been brought to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan concerned for
settlement. RTC DISAGREED and DENIED the affirmative defense of lack
of jurisdiction.
o The respondent claimed that the subject government unit is a part of its
territory. Clearly, the issue revolves and gravitates on who between the
petitioner and respondent is the owner of sitio Liwagao, barangay Maasim,
and NOT merely a boundary dispute because both parties claim the whole
government unit of sitio Liwagao and not merely a part thereof to
constitute it as boundary dispute to fall under Section 118, paragraph c of
the Local Government Code.
o The respondent claims that it should have been brought first to the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan concern (sic) for settlement. The court is not
in accord with such contention because the Sanggunian of Antique already
issued 25 May 2012 Resolution categorically declaring [Link] of
ANTIQUE is NOT AMENABLE to any form of settlement. Hence, the
court believes that it would be an exercise in futility for the petitioners to
agree with respondents' argument. (As correctly pointed out by Atty.
Kristine Grace L. Suarez in her memorandum) NO law precluding a party
to a case from availing of any legal remedies available. In this case, the
petitioners logically opted to institute this case which is an action for
recovery and declaration of jurisdiction/dominion.
- 17 July 2013 RTC Resolution : MR DENIED
o The real issue in this case is not a boundary dispute between the
petitioners and respondents but whether or not the former can recover
back what it had lent to the latter.
- Liwagao Island was under the peaceful and exclusive territorial and political
jurisdiction by the Municipality of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro. In fact,
voluminous documents clearly show that Liwagao is within the Municipality of
Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro. This alone strongly indicates that the issue in this
case is not a boundary dispute because these documents indicate that Liwagao
Island is within the Municipality of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro. If it is true as
 claimed by the respondents that Liwagao Island is within its territorial and
political jurisdiction, why would then Mayor Lim of Caluya, Antique still need to
secure the consent of the then Mayor Bago of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro to
temporarily exercise jurisdiction over the Island of Liwagao. (May point nga
naman si RTC).
- Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
TRO
o Enjoin all proceedings of the court a quo and of the respondent judge
during the pendency of the case
o writ of certiorari be issued, reversing the questioned Orders of the
respondent judge dated April 23, 2013 and July 17, 2013 in dismissing the
case.
o writ of prohibition be issued permanently enjoining respondent judge
from taking cognizance of this case.
- 14 October 2013 – Court issued TRO enjoing respondent RTC from further
proceeding with the enforcement of the Orders dated 23 April 2013 and 17 July
2013.
- Petitioner’s argument:
o RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it ruled that the case does NOT involve a boundary
dispute. Petitioner insist case simply a BD when “two entities disagree as
to where the boundary between them lies.”
o RTC erred in assuming jurisdiction over respondents' petition because
"the SANG. PANLAs of both the provinces of Antique and Oriental
Mindoro, sitting jointly, have primary, original and exclusive jurisdiction
over this boundary dispute.
o RTC ONLY has jurisdiction over an appeal from the decision of the
SANG. PANLAs in a boundary dispute in accordance with Sec. 119 of
the Local Government Code. They aver that the petition filed with the
RTC was not an appeal but an original complaint, which alleges that the
parties concerned failed to settle the dispute.
o RTC CANNOT exercise appellate jurisdiction over respondent’s petition
since NO petition for the adjudication of the BD has yet been filed and
decided by [Link] of Antique and Oriental Mindoro, usually in
a form of resolution. Calling of joint session does NOT qualify as such as
it did NOT lay claim over Liwagao Island.
- Respondent:
o Technicality attacks:
  the instant case was filed one day after the lapse of the 60-day
reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari/prohibition;
 petitioners also failed to attach a certified true copy of the assailed
RTC orders and to file the required number of copies of the
petition; and (3) petitioners failed to pay the filing fee within the
reglementary period.
- petitioners failed to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
o order of the RTC should be filed with the CA and not with SC.
- RTC has jurisdiction over their petition because the same is not an appeal but
an, “an original legal action to recover and get back the Island of Liwagao.”
- Respondent insist NO BD and that NO law precludes party from availing of any
legal remedies available to respondent under law.
- Even if assuming it is the SANG. PANLAs of the Provinces of Oriental Mindoro
and Antique that have jurisdiction, factual circumstances rendered it impossible
for these legislative bodies to resolve the issue involving the Island of Liwagao.
SANG. PANLA of Antique categorically proclaimed that it was NOT amenable
to any form of settlement.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the respondents' petition for recovery
of property and declaration of territorial and political jurisdiction/dominion over
Liwagao Island.
RULING: YES. Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. RTC has jurisdiction over
the dispute. However, the RTC's ruling that the case does NOT involve a boundary
dispute is INCORRECT.
- Boundary dispute involving different local government units is defined in the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) [Administrative Order No. 270.
Issued on 21 February 1992] of the Local Government Code [ RA
7160]. Specifically, Rule III, Article 15 states:

RULE III
Settlement of Boundary Disputes

ARTICLE 15. Definition and Policy. — There is a boundary dispute when a

portion or the whole of the territorial area of an LGU is claimed by two or
more LGUs. Boundary disputes between or among LGUs shall, as much as
possible, be settled amicably.
- Boundary dispute may involve "a portion or the whole" of a local government unit's
territorial area. Nothing in this provision excludes a dispute over an island. So
long as the island is being claimed by different local government units, there
exists a boundary dispute.
- The allegations in the complaint filed before the RTC point to a boundary
dispute, as defined under the Local Government Code.
- Respondents are asserting their lawful jurisdiction over Liwagao Island as against
another local government unit that currently has jurisdiction over the same.
whether the case is denominated as recovery of possession or claim of
ownership, respondents' objective is the same: for respondents to regain their
alleged territorial jurisdiction over Liwagao Island.
- Respondent Province of Oriental Mindoro itself acknowledges that the conflict
is a “boundary row” between itself and the Province of Antique, as stated in the
Resolution calling for joint session to “adhere to the basic principle of amicably
settling said boundary dispute…” Hence, they are bound by their own assertion,
and cannot claim otherwise.
- Having established that the case involves BD:
o the respective legislative councils of the contending local government
units have jurisdiction over their boundary disputes.
o Section 118 (c), LGC: Boundary disputes involving municipalities or
component cities of different provinces shall be jointly referred for
settlement to the Sanggunians of the provinces concerned. (please refer to
the above procedure na lang. Pagod nako mag-type)
- It must be emphasized that respondents followed the procedure laid down in the
Local Government Code. However, petitioners failed to perform their
concomitant responsibility under the same law, leaving respondents with no
other recourse but to bring the matter to court. Petitioners cannot demand that
respondents now follow the procedure when they themselves have made it
impossible for any party to follow the same. The Province of Antique's
Resolution stating that the Province of Antique was not amenable to any form
of settlement, effectively blocked any way to continue following the steps in the
IRR.
- Petition before the RTC must be upheld. Otherwise, they will be left without any
recourse or legal remedy to assert their claim over Liwagao Island. Such
uncertainty is unacceptable, as the fate of the island's residents rest in the
immediate resolution of the dispute.
PRACTICE OF PROFESSION
- GOV / MAYORs: PROHIBITED from practicing their profession or engaging
in any occupation.
- SANG members may practice their profession, engage in ANY occupation or
teach EXCEPT during SESSION hours.
o EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION:
 Q: Who can practice profession during session hours?
 ANS: Physicians/Doctors may practice during session hours
ONLY in emergency cases but NO physician profession
fee/compensation. Thank you only.
- SANG members who are LAWYERS: Shall NOT
 The “DO NOT BITE THE HANDS OF THE PERSON THAT
FEEDS YOU” doctrine (JOKE!!!)
o Appeal as counsel in any civil case where LGU is adverse party
o Appear as counsel in criminal case where accused is officer of the National
or Local Gov. accused of an offense committed IN RELATION TO HIS
OFFICE.
o Collect a fee for appearance in administrative proceedings involving the
LGU of which he is an official.
o Use property and personnel of the government EXCEPT when the
SANG members is defending the interest of the government.
- In Catu vs. Rellosa [AC 5738, February 19, 2008]:
o VGR, a lawyer and a punong barangay and chairman of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa, presided over the conciliation proceedings in an ejectment
case. The parties to the case were NOT able to amicably settle their
dispute. Then one of the parties sought his legal assistance and VGR
handled her case. In the course thereof, he prepared and signed pleadings
including the answers with counter claim, pre-trial brief, position paper
and notice of appeal. (Ready to battle)
o He is sued not for violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
o The Court held that the rule applies ONLY to a lawyer who has left the
government service in connection “with any matter in which he
intervened while in said service.” Accordingly, as Punong Brgy., he was
NOT forbidden to practice his profession. HOWEVER, he should have
procured prior permission or authorization from the head of his
Department (DILG Secretary), as required by the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations, particularly Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil
Service Rules. Acting as counsel for a party without first securing the
required written permission, he is NOT ONLY engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law BUT ALSO violated civil service rules which
is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
“A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.”